Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI VS Respondent: SHO, P.S. KAMEER DISTT. SAHIWAL and 2 others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Saeed Akhtar Title: Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI vs SHO, P.S. KAMEER DISTT. SAHIWAL and 2 others Case No.: W.P. No, 1848 of 2006 Date of Judgment:2006-05-16 Reported As: PLJ 2009 Lahore 527 Result: F.I.R. quashed
Judgment ORDER A case stands registered against the petitioner vide FIR No, 75 of 2006 dated 02.3.2006 under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 at P.S. Kameer, District Sahiwal. 2. The facts as stated in the FIR are that on 26.6.2006 the Respondent No, 1 had gone to Arifwala and his mother had gone to attend some funeral ceremony. His wife and sister were present in the house. The accused persons named in the FIR came on a 'Dala' and informed his wife and sister that the Respondent No, 2 (the husband of the petitioner) had met an accident and they had come to fetch his wife petitioner. The accused persons had abducted his wife and she also took away Rs, 15,000/-with her. It was further stated that the wife of the petitioner was enticed away and detained with criminal intention. Subsequently Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 was also added. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the bare reading of the FIR no offence is made out. Seeks quashment' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admitting her guilt under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. Learned A.A.G. states that no such statement exists on the record and that apparently no case is made out under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. 3. I have gone through the contents of the FIR and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the partes. The petitioner has appeared in person and states that she was neither enticed away or taken away by the accused with an intent to commit zina with any person. The relationship between Respondent No, 2 (her husband) and herself became strained and she went
---
## Page 2
to live with her relative of her own free will. At present she is lodged in Darulaman. She further stated that she has also filed a suit for dissolution of the marriage. Nothing has come out during the investigation that offence under Section 10(2) or Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 was committed. This petition is allowed and the FIR No, 75/2006 dated 2.3.2006 registered at P.S. Kameer, District Sahiwal is quashed.